K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack acquitting the appellant of charges under sections 330 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (TJ P. C. T for short ). ( 2 ) THE case of the appellant in a nutshell is that he is a former member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and an active politician. The respondent was the Officer-in-Charge of Mahanga Police Station. Early in the morning of 29. 1. 1978 the appellant was arrested by the respondent in a proceeding under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) in Non-F. I. R. Case No. 9 of 1978 and was brought to the police station and locked inside the Hazat. Soon thereafter, three police constables by force laid him on the floor, made him naked and pressed both his hands. The respondent brought a hot iron pipe and attempted to press the same on his naked body. The appellant resisted and kicked, as a result of which, the hot iron pipe came in contact with his ankle joint resulting in a burn injury. He also received injuries on both his hands. At about 1 P. m. he was sent under hand-cuff to Cuttack for production before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. When he was actually produced before him on 30. 1. 1978, he made an oral report about the above incident which was reduced into writing by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack and was treated as a complaint. ( 3 ) THE plea of the respondent to the charges framed against him under sections 330 and 352 I. P. C. was that in connection with Non-F. I. R. Case No. 9 of 1978, he had arrested the appellant. At the time of arrest, the appellant had an injury on the right ankle which was bandaged with signs of pus. When he enquired from the appellant as to how he had sustained injury, the appellant had told him that he had fallen down from the motor-cycle resulting in the injury. For abundant caution, he requisitioned the services of the Medical Officer of Mahanga to examine the appellant, but he refused to be examined. The respondent denied the allegations made against him in toto and stated that on account of the arrest, the appellant, a local political big wig made false accusation against him. For abundant caution, he requisitioned the services of the Medical Officer of Mahanga to examine the appellant, but he refused to be examined. The respondent denied the allegations made against him in toto and stated that on account of the arrest, the appellant, a local political big wig made false accusation against him. ( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accepted the defence version and held that the case against the respondent was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he recorded an order of acquittal. ( 5 ) MR. Ashok Mukherjee, appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the prosecution evidence warrants the only reasonable conclusion that the respondent was guilty of assault. Therefore, the respondent is liable to be punished according to law. Mr. R. K. Rath, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that this is not a fit case to reverse the order of acquittal. ( 6 ) SINCE I am going to deal with an appeal against acquittal, I would profitably reproduce the following passage from the judgment reported in Ram Jag and other v. the State of U. P. and quoted in Mehtab Singh and others v. the State of Madhya Pradesh: - The principles governing appeals against acquittal are thus firmly established and the issue cannot now be re-opened. The Code of Criminal Procedure by section 423, has accorded parity to appeals against conviction and appeals against acquittal the Code makes no distinction between the powers of the appellate Court in regard to the two categories of appeals and therefore the High Court has powers as full and wide in appeals against acquittal as in appeals against conviction. Whether the High Court is dealing with one class of appeals or the other, it must equally have regard to the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that unless the statute provides to the contrary, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and secondly, that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Whether the High Court is dealing with one class of appeals or the other, it must equally have regard to the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that unless the statute provides to the contrary, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and secondly, that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Due regard to the views of the trial Court as to the credibility of witnesses in matters resting on pure appreciation of evidence and the studied slowness of the appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, where such seeing and hearing can be useful aids to the assessment of evidence, are well-known principles which generally inform the administration of justice and govern the exercise of all appellate jurisdiction. They are self-imposed limitations on a power otherwise plenary and like all voluntary restraints, they constitute valuable guidelines. Such regard and slowness must find their reflection in the appellate judgment, which can only be if the appellate Court deals with the principal reasons that influenced the order of acquittal and after examining the evidence with care gives its own reasons justifying a contrary view of the evidence. It is implicit in this judicial process that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed. In connection with this principle a few other decisions are Labh v. State, Jimmy v. State, Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, Haresh v. State, and Dinesh v. State. ( 7 ) IT is now necessary to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as well as, by the defence, P. W. 4 is the complainant. (Though he was a former member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, it is necessary to know him in his own words. He admitted in his evidence that he had inimical relationship with the respondent with whom he was not even in talking terms.) He was arrested by the respondent in about 10 to 15 political cases. The Sadar Police station submitted charge sheet against him in 4 dacoity cases. The Mahanga Police Station also submitted charge sheet in a dacoity case. He is further involved in 5 cases and suits pending in different courts. The Sadar Police station submitted charge sheet against him in 4 dacoity cases. The Mahanga Police Station also submitted charge sheet in a dacoity case. He is further involved in 5 cases and suits pending in different courts. One case is against Orissa Government, another against Radhanath Rath and the rest against police officers. He filed one case against the Officer-in-charge of the Sadar Police Station and another case against the ex-Officer-in-Charge of the Mahanga Police Station. The police submitted prosecution report against him for harbouring criminals. (His name has been enlisted in the police station records as a terrorist. These antecedents elicited from the mouth of the witness himself show that he is involved in dacoity and other criminal cases and. is a veteran litigant. Obviously, he did not have good relationship with some Police Officers against whom he instituted cases. He had inimical relationship with the respondent. Therefore, unless his evidence is found to be corroborated by independent evidence and circumstances of unimpeachable character, the same must have to be discarded ). In the statement of complaint, he narrated that he was forcibly laid on the floor of the Hazat and made naked, Three constables grabbed both his hands. The respondent brought a hot iron pipe and tried to brand him. He struggled and kicked, during which, the hot iron pipe came in contact with his ankle joint causing a burn injury. He had swelling and pain over the dorsal region of both his palms. He had no witness. In his evidence he magnified the aforesaid alleged occurrence manifold. He stated that three to four constables belonging to the A. P. R. force got inside the Hazat and assaulted him. He fell down. They kicked him. Two or three of them pounced upon him. They pressed his wrists with their feet with boots on. They dashed his head against the floor. After some time the respondent brought a hot metal pipe holding the same in a Chimta and asked the others to make him naked so that he will brand him. The constables forcibly took away the napkin which he was wearing. The police force present inside the Hazat pressed him against the floor. The respondent attempted to press the metal pipe on his body. The constables forcibly took away the napkin which he was wearing. The police force present inside the Hazat pressed him against the floor. The respondent attempted to press the metal pipe on his body. In order to escape injuries, he moved his feet to and fro, during which, his right leg came in contact with the metal pipe and be sustained the burn injury above his right ankle. In cross-examination, he further magnified the alleged occurrence. He stated that he was pushed by his neck and was kicked on the stomach and thereafter made to lie on the floor. Even when he was lying on the ground he was beaten on the chest, hand, stomach, leg and back due to which he sustained bruises. When he was assaulted, he was looking at his assailants and was shouting Marigali Marigali. If as a matter of fact, the witness had been assaulted so severely and in a brutal manner, there ought to have been many injuries or marks of assault all over his body. But when he was examined inside the jail by P. W. 5, only three injuries were noticed, two on the dorsal region of both the palms which were bruises and another bruise near the ankle joint of the right leg caused due to burn. The evidence of P. W. 4 is thus spiced with exaggerations and embellishments which makes it so improbable that the judicial mind refuses it to be true. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 was a man of different village. He was a pure and simple chance witness. He had no occasion to be present early in the morning when the appellant was arrested by the respondent. He did not speak anything about the alleged occurrence. His evidence was relied upon to prove that at the time of arrest the appellant had no injury on his ankle-joint. He stated that he did not mark any injury below the knee and below the elbow-joint of the appellant. Even, if P. W. 2 saw the appellant casually, it was not probable that he searched for existence of injuries on the person of the appellant. His evidence read as a whole does not inspire confidence. ( 9 ) P. WS. He stated that he did not mark any injury below the knee and below the elbow-joint of the appellant. Even, if P. W. 2 saw the appellant casually, it was not probable that he searched for existence of injuries on the person of the appellant. His evidence read as a whole does not inspire confidence. ( 9 ) P. WS. 1 and 4 stated that when they heard of the arrest of the appellant, they practically ran to the police station and stood under a Chakunda tree at a distance of about 60 to 70 cubits from the police station. According to their evidence the Hazat inside the Thana was not visible. They did not also see the alleged occurrence regarding assault of the appellant by the police constables, as well as, the attempt made by the respondent to brand him with a hot iron pipe. They heard the cries, such as, Marigali, Marigali and when the appellant was escorted to the bus stand to be taken to Cuttack, they saw injuries on his person. The appellant also disclosed to P. W. 1 that the injury at the ankle-joint was caused as a result of a hot iron pipe being pressed by the police. Both of them stated that when the appellant was taken to the police station he had no injury on his person. It was not probable on their part to observe existence of injuries on the person of the appellant when they had a glimpse of him as the appellant got down from the police jeep and entered inside the police station premises. P. W. 1 stated that one Jamadar of the police station went to his quarters and brought one iron pipe and an iron Chimta and handed over the same to the respondent. He was holding the iron pipe with the Chimta. The respondent entered inside the Hazat with the iron pipe and Chimta. Two minutes thereafter, he heard the cries Marigali, Marigali. This evidence cannot be believed because, it seems improbable that when outsiders were present and were vigilant, a hot iron pipe was brought so as to torture the appellant. If the respondent had intended to torture the appellant inside the Hazat, he could do so surreptitiously and not openly while a large number of persons were standing outside the police station and looking on. If the respondent had intended to torture the appellant inside the Hazat, he could do so surreptitiously and not openly while a large number of persons were standing outside the police station and looking on. He stated in his cross-examination that the respondent was sitting on his chair in his office inside the police station when the occurrence took place. He could not recognise the voice of a person coming from a dosed room. He had no talk with the appellant on the date of occurrence. The statements show that when the alleged occurrence took place, the respondent was not inside the Hazat, the witness did not recognise that the cries Marigali, Marigali emanated from the appellant and that there was no occasion for the appellant to tell him that he had been assaulted and mishandled by the police. The evidence of the other witness, P. W. 3 is still worse. He stated in cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence he was in his house. He saw the injury when the appellant was escorted from the police station to the bus stand. The injury was 2 below the knee, but could not say on which leg such injury existed. The injury looked like a black spot. According to the appellants case the burn injury was near about the ankle-joint. But this witness saw an injury on the person of the appellant 2 below the knee. Such evidence of these witnesses is liable to be gravely doubted. ( 10 ) THE improbability of the appellants case which cannot be lost sight of is that the respondent would not have dared to assault the appellant and treat him cruelly inside the Hazat. Indisputedly the appellant was a former member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and was involved in a number of litigations including cases of dacoity. According to his own evidence he had approached to political persons. He had aha some influence in his locality and was addressing public meetings along with politicians. The respondent was duty bound to arrest him, but in my view he could not have dared to torture and injure a person such as the appellant. It was also most unlikely that he could do so when a large crowd was standing just outside the police station and was watching. So the probability factor is against the prosecution case. The respondent was duty bound to arrest him, but in my view he could not have dared to torture and injure a person such as the appellant. It was also most unlikely that he could do so when a large crowd was standing just outside the police station and was watching. So the probability factor is against the prosecution case. ( 11 ) IT is now necessary to consider the defence case. According to the respondent, the appellant was the owner of a motor-cycle. Sometime before arrest, he had fallen down from the motor-cycle, when, the hot silencer pipe came in contact with his right ankle causing a burn injury. At the time of the arrest the appellant had already the injury near the ankle-joint which was bandaged by a cloth having pus mark. So he sent a requisition to the local Medical Officer (D. W. 1) to come to the police station and examine the appellant. From the evidence of D. W. 1, who was the Medical Officer of Mahanga P. H. C. at the relevant time it appears that he knew the appellant who was a local important man and father of his friend Dr. H. P. Roy. After receiving the requisition (Ext. 4) from the respondent to examine the right leg of the appellant, he went to the police station. The appellant refused to be examined by him. He saw that a piece of white cloth was tied on the lower part of his right leg which had pus mark. It is not possible to disbelieve and reject the evidence of this independent witness. He stated in his cross-examination that the appellant seemed perturbed inside the Hazat. Even if the appellant seemed perturbed, it was not unnatural, because, he was an aged man and was arrested early in the morning. The appellant in his evidence admitted that he owned a motor-cycle. From the aforesaid evidence, the defence case narrated above does not seem improbable. ( 12 ) IN the ultimate analysis, the evidence of the appellant (P. W. 4) is full of exaggerations and embellishments. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be relied upon. So they did not corroborate the appellants version of the case. The defence case was a probable one. In this back ground, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate was unreasonable. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be relied upon. So they did not corroborate the appellants version of the case. The defence case was a probable one. In this back ground, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate was unreasonable. On a review of the evidence, circumstances and probabilities, it is not possible to take a different view. The prosecution case was extremely doubtful. The order of acquittal cannot be reversed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .